Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Journal #8 - Freedom of the Press vs. Wartime Government

I bring up the dual issues of censorship of ideas and censorship of the press during wartime because it came up during the talk on the Espionage and Sedition Acts during the Great War. Under these acts, a person can be fined up to a max of $10 grand and given a 20 year sentence for interfering with the sale of war bonds or the draft, or saying anything profane, disloyal, or abusive about the government. Obviously, these laws violate the 1st Amendment.

During wartime, there is a feeling that certain ideas may be considered dangerous, traitorous, or even downright unpatriotic. Many have been accused of such things when criticizing their government during times of war, and our history book mentions some of them. Eugene V. Debs, a Socialist Party leader and candidate for the Presidency, was sentenced to ten years in prison and fined $10,000 for "speaking out against the war and the draft" (Danzer, et. al. 392). Anarchist Emma Goldman was convicted and sentenced for creating a No Conscription League and then was deported to Russia after two years in jail.

The legal reasoning backing these cases up was set in cases like Schenck v. U.S. (1919). Eminent justice Oliver Wendell Holmes jr. stated that "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the evils that Congress has a right to prevent." Justice Holmes went on comparing protecting free speech of the guy who yells "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theatre. Holmes implied that Mr. Schenck's wartime leaflets were that kind of clear and present danger and therefore needed to be censured. Is Justice Holmes correct when he compares the two? Or should there be freedom of expression even during times of war?

Then there's the case of the press. Should the press have access to everything as if there wasn't a war going on? What if the war had secret information? Should they publish or release the info to the public? How much censorship is too much? How much is too little?

You can pick either freedom of the press or freedom of speech, or feel free to tackle both issues. Use a specific example if you'd like. All submissions should be a minimum of 150 words (that's for you, Joe!).

40 comments:

Anonymous said...

Giving full freedom to the press is like giving a kid free candy, it’s exactly what they want and they’ll go nuts with all the power. So, in addition to that statement, I also protest that the press shouldn’t have access to everything as if there wasn’t a war going on. I think that they take the access they are given and try to do anything to sell a story. They are the ones that we hear from everyday and they can make the stories as juicy as they want them to be. If the war had secret information, then it is up to the government to keep that away from the public. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want our tax dollars to be wasted on lying politicians but if the press got a hold on that kind of secret information, there is no telling what they might fabricate in the process. As a civilian, I only see what is there; the newspaper headlines, magazine articles or online topics. I have no clue on the amount of censorship some programs use, too much or too little. The amount of censorship that is too much is when we have information on only one side of the story, which is usually the negative one. For all we know, we could have been given false information, or something like that. Then again, there are times when the censorship is too little and usually, all wreaks of havoc.
-Stephanie Nagel, 5th hour

Anonymous said...

I think you should have the same rights back then that you have today. You should always be able to say what yopu feel even it hurts or enlightens peoples feelings or either right or wrong because those are your precious oppinions. george W. Debois and Emma Goodman i think had a right to say what they had to say because it wasn't lioke they did it in a violent way they just said their oppinions. Now some of the stuff people say can be censured because if no stuff was censured then their qwould be chaos everywhere. I think that justice Holmes had the right to say it but if he hadn't of said it would of been better. During the war as again i think they have a right to say it but i dont think it's in their best interst they just keep it to themselves because they ca really tick someone off. I beleive their should be censorship if i really think about most the things we say should be heard. In the papers they should be reaad unless it is secret information thats better off for people if they didn't know.

Gil Clark 6th hour

Anonymous said...

I believe that the press should have access to everything as if there wasn’t a war going on up to a point. I believe that the press should not publish where the soldiers are staying. Also, they should not publish or release this info to the public. There should be set limits by the government, but they should be fair. The government should take charge and say that the press can find out things about the war such as death toll and war status, but they cannot publish location and attack plots of the enemy for obvious reasons. There is such thing as too much censorship. When the government says that the press cannot publish things related to the war at all, then they are taking it way too far. As far as the speaking out against the government issue, I believe that the first amendment states that citizens have freedom of speech and I believe that this should not have boundaries or restrictions based on what is going on in the country at that particular time.
- Steven Haddad, 5th hour

Anonymous said...

I feel that people should have the right to freedom of speech even during times of war. Look at the war in Iraq today. A majority of the country feels that George Bush was wrong for going into Iraq. Should people not be allowed to comment on the war in Iraq and even protest it? When Oliver Wendell Holmes jr. compared the two, he wasn't even close. Just because someone says something or comments on something, doesn't mean that danger is created and action needs to be taken. People are allowed to disagree and comment on what they believe. But, I don't think that the press should be allowed access to everything. War documents could contain secret information that the citizens of the United States don't need to see. Items that could give away our positions or foreshadow another move. Therefore, I believe that people should be allowed freedom of speech, and some freedom of press.
John Ross, 6th hour

Anonymous said...

I think that people should have freedom of speech, even during wartime. The Espionage and Sedation acts clearly are a violation of the 1st amendment: Freedom of Speech. There are always going to be people who are against a certain war, or have differing opinions about the war. These people should be able to let their opinions be known, as they are able to do in a time of Peace. However, I do not think that the press should have complete access to what is going on in the war. Like Stephanie said, the press will do anything to sell a story. They might blow a story out of proportion, or give away secret information to the other sides. As a civilian, I would not want our military positions to be jeopardized just so the press can sell their story. Still, the press should be allowed to access everything else non-war related just as they would in a time of peace.
Emily Fitzgerald
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

i believe that if we givethe press all the freedom they want, they will go way overboard. If we give them all this freedom and letting them go anywhere they want, then it is basically going to turn into chaos. Nothing will be a secret, the press will basically have as much power as the president. the government will be able to keep nothing secret, and the world will turn into something that it shouldnt. Although, if the press could find out about corrupt poilitions and expose them, i would like that, although, with all this freedom they could really just interview someone, and then just make up the stories to make it seem like they are corrupt. With all this freedom, there is no telling what the press could do, and i dont really want to find out. They could wreak havoc on the U.S and then we are bacially all in big trouble.

Anonymous said...

I think that we should have the same rights now back then because people need to express how they feel about the government. Its not a bad thing that people use freedom of speech to express how they feel. They arent causing any trouble and if the government takes away the right for citizens to speak then its not called freedom of speech. Everyone needs to speak against the government because if we did bush would not be in office rigt now. he wouldnt of been elected to run.
~eric wynns~5th hour

Anonymous said...

First of all I think that everyone should have had the same freedom of speech rights as people have now a days. I Think it was stupid to send the people, that wanted to say their own opinion, to jail and make them pay $10.000. They just wanted to say their own opinion and maybe help the government, in other words give the government more ideas, instead of hurting the government or other people. Furthermore they didn’t say their own opinion in a violent way. Second of all, I don’t think that the press should have the rights to have access to everything as if there was no war going on. Because they may have lied to the people in order to make the government look better. Then they shouldn’t have the rights to publish everything to the public. I think everything they say should first be checked and some articles should be censored. To conclude I think that most things the press says should be censored and that most people should have had some rights to the freedom of speech.

Ken M

Anonymous said...

I believe that American citizens should have the freedom of speech always even during times of war. If nothing is being said and nothing is being done, then you are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Should people stand by and just be innocent observers when they really want to share their opinions with others? I think if you want to share your view, you should not be discriminated against and you should be able to share your opinion. If there is no danger involved, I don’t understand why you can’t speak your mind. Many Americans feel that George Bush is doing the wrong thing by going into Iraq. I feel that the Americans should be able to disagree and fight for what they believe in. Americans should have some freedom of press but, you have to respect it at the same time. Citizens do not need to see confidential papers and it not trustworthy. That is why I believe that American citizens should have the freedom of speech and with respect, freedom of press.

Evie C
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

Freedom of the Press is one of the right given to all Americans and can be taken for granted. It is one of the rights that all Americans expect to have and won’t take anything else. I think that no matter the national situation, people should be able to say what they feel. Although I think that a positive attitude should be suggested and patriotism should always stand, I feel that if someone finds something important to them then everyone should respect how they feel no matter if they disagree or not. I think that freedom of speech should never be disregarded but I do think that everyone should take the circumstances into account before they say something. I do believe that unnecessary bashing of the American government and of the people our country stands for is not a smart choice but if someone truly stands by their statement then all of the rest of us should respect it and can also let others know how they feel in opposition to their statement and why they feel the way they do.

-Mariah Van Ermen
6th Hour

Ian Kohler said...

I believe that there should be freedom of speech even during times of war because the First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that:

• Establish a state religion or prefer a certain religion;

• Prohibit free exercise of religion;

• Infringe the freedom of speech;

• Infringe the freedom of the press;

• Limit the right to assemble peaceably;

• Limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Although the First Amendment only explicitly prohibits the named rights from being prevented by laws made by Congress, the courts have interpreted it as applying more broadly. Since the Constitution reserves all law-making authority to Congress, the courts have held that the First Amendment's terms also extend to the executive and judicial branches. Additionally, in the 20th century the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process clause of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment causes the First Amendment to apply to the states as well. Therefore, since the First Amendment gives one the right of free speech, I think you should be able to say what you want out of concern for one’s country. Even during wartime, people should be allowed to speak out without facing any consequences unless they are attempting to cause civil unrest. In conclusion, I think more people should have spoken out during the early 1900s. Furthermore, this may have helped prevent the two world wars that were faced during the 20th century.

Anonymous said...

Freedom of Speech is probably the most precious law we have today. No one wants to be told they can't share their opinions.I think it was rediculous that people were actually fined and sentenced for just saying a remark about the war or country. It's almost impossible if you think about it to not have freedom of speech. Just because it's everywhere. Music, tv, books, clothing, movies, etc.
As far as the press goes i think there are certain limits to how much you can access. If we had full access to everything that was going on in Iraq, there were be even more problems then there are right now. Censory is another touchy subject because who are we to say whats morally acceptable or not. WE either have too much or too little. No one is ever happy because we all have different opinions. But where would society be if we didn't have freedom of speech?

Maddie M. 6th hour

Anonymous said...

I Don't think the press should have access to everything. I think that top secret information is top secret for a reason, and it would probably alarm the public if they new information they shouldn't. I also think you don't no what the press would do with the information, they may turn the story around or get the story wrong and truly scare the public. I feel the subject of censorship is very delicate, either way it can cause problems. If theres to much of it we could be given false information, which could cause problems. If there was not enough or too little censorship it could cause complete caios among the public.

-Shayna Stillman
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

I don’t think the press should have access to all information. Especially during times when the US is at war. When you give the press full freedom of information they will go crazy with it. Just like if you give me freedom of ice cream I will go crazy eating it. The press likes to turn boring stories, into ones that readers will find interesting. They do this by adding in details that are not always true. If you compare the same topic of an article in the Detroit Free Press to The NY Times, as a reader you might get different ideas of what really happened. The press is mainly out there is sell their story and make money. If the U.S government told the press every thing during war times then the country we were fighting against could get critical information on what the US next move was in the war. But the press should have basic information on how the war is progressing, so it can inform the public.
Emily Betts
5th hour

Anonymous said...

I believe that people should have freedom of speech, even during war times. I think that people deserve the right to have freedom of speech. People should have the right to voice their opinions. If nothing is being said then how will there ever be a solution to the ongoing problems? But I don’t believe that the press should have access to know everything, because most people would just abuse that power. The press shouldn’t be able to release whatever they want to the public. Some information may not be factual or either their just trying to sell a story. If the press has access to everything then many stories will be fabricated. That’s why I believe not just anything should be released to the public unless it is something that is factual and will benefit people.
~Brandi B.
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

I think that the government should and shouldn't release information to the public. I think that if the information is not harsh and won't really hurt the American people, then the goverenment should tell. If it hurts the American people in a major way, then the government shouldn't tell them. Like Stephanie said, giving full freedom of the press is like giving a kid free candy. I don't think that everyone should know what's going on, but at the same time, don't leave us floating in the air. At least, give us some information to keep us calm. If we have no information, then we start to get violent. America already has too many international problems. We don't need to start new problems just because the government wouldn't give us the info we wanted in the first place. Even if the information is false, it would be ok. False information is better than no information at all.

~Eboni Bell~
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

I think that people should be able to say what they want no matter what. I don’t think that people should get fined or put in prison just for speaking their mind. If there is a war going on, I think you should still be able to say if its non-sense or rubbish. For instance, the war in Iraq. Everybody talks about how Bush shouldn’t have gone into Iraq. They think it was stupid for him to go now that he won’t leave. When people speak their minds even if it offends many other people, it lets everyone know what exactly others think. And what exactly others want to do. With that being said, i think people have the right to say whatever they want.

Rhema S.
6th

Anonymous said...

we have the right to say whatever we want as american citizens, i mean it is part of our core democratic values... Freedom of speech. why that should end because of a war i truly do not understand. Take the war now, only 33% of people agree with G. Bush's descion with the war in Iraq. People disagree with it all the time, why should we not be able to. If you feel strongly about something, the good thing about being american is that you are allowed to say something about the problem. i totally agree with john on this one. he just brings up good points, that we shouldn't be quiet. Most people should have the freedom of speech and the freedom of press. For instance, Jay Leno ALWAYS makes fun of George Bush, and his bad way and nothing has happened to him yet. In conclusion people should be able to express the way that they feel and what thoughts that they have on their mind, and the only way to do so is through speech and through writing it.

Michael McDonald
6th hour.

Anonymous said...

During wartime, I do believe that there are boundaries in which the press has to stay in. I do fully believe in freedom of the press and freedom of speech, but there is a certain moral line that has to be set for the press. For entire freedom, there would be mass chaos in public because the press would publish everything during wartime and would ruin the stability in society. For the war in Iraq, I feel that the press tends to highlight the faults during the war, instead of the highlights or triumphs. When do you ever not hear about car bombings and death today in the paper? I understand the need for this, but I do not understand why the press has to publish everything during the war. In addition, if the press was given full freedom, the secrets of the war tactics of the United States might be leaked, and therefore accessed by our enemies. Looking back on the Dixie Chick incident, I recall that the public had a backlash towards them and their comments against Bush. I understand freedom of speech and how important it is, but I also understand that the United States should be filled with positive power during wartime.

Leah C. 6th Hour

Geoff Wickersham said...

I'm going to disagree w/ Eboni when she says that even false information is better than no information.

I look at the bogus intelligence that the President and his administration showed the American public between the summer of 2002 and the spring of 2003 leading up the invasion of Iraq. They told us that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks and training Al-Qaeda terrorists. That info has proved false. We were told that we had to stop the WMDs from falling into the wrong hands. But then there proved to be no WMDs when we went looking. Were they there in the first place or had the U.N. inspectors gotten rid of them by 1998 when they were last allowed into Iraq?

Now, when you objectively look at it three and a half years later (and sometimes I find it hard to look at it objectively even though I initially supported the war), you have to ask the question, did this false information get almost 3,000 American soldiers killed, over 23,000 soldiers wounded, and untold number of Iraqis killed?
And for what reasons? If the press had been more on their game during this time and not acting like cheerleaders, maybe something would have changed.

Anonymous said...

Crossing a barrier of honesty is a very touchy subject, especially when it comes to the press. That barrier is known by most journalists, most people, in fact, can identify when going that line is crossed. There should be no tampering with confidential subjects matters. There should be punishments for journalists that jeopardize the country. But when it comes to exposing lies and deceit, journalists have the right to publish the truth. Overall, these rights should be given and respected, but permited to a point.
~Chelsea R
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

I dont thinkk it matters if the prss should be aloud fuul coverage or not. If there i a war going on or a big vebt then the press and the public isd going to be all over it. There would be even more motivations if the war had secrets because that would make just that many more stories on that topic. For example when there was a secret that there were weapons of mass destruction, there was a story about it everyday day on the news seeing if any secrets have been broken. I think that there should be informatio released to the public because they are the people that will be affected the greatest by the war and they dhould know if there is danger coming and all the situations. There should be limits, such as not showing so much live action because that could really effect somebody. But there could also be too little like not telling the public anything at all.
*Mike A.* 5th hour AKA Famous Amos

Anonymous said...

I believe that everyone deserves to have the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means that you can say what you want and when you want and even in times of war. It just seems stupid to make someone pay up to $10 grand and sentence someone to serve 20 years in jail for saying something that the government dislikes. What kind of government do we have if they put people in jail for simply stating what is on their minds. Also, those laws really go against and violate the 1st Amendment of this country. During Eugene V. Debs, a candidate for presidency and a Socialists Party leader was sentenced to ten years in prison and fined for $10,000 dollars. His only crime was "speaking out against the war and the draft." Now does that really seem like the right thing to do? I also don't believe that Homer was right when he compared freedom of speech to the guy who yells "fire" in a crowded movie theatre. If we let our government make us pay money and spend time in jail for saying what we thik during wartime, how are we to stop them from convicting us for saying anything that they do not like at anytime?

Brittany Clay
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

I believe that people should have freedom of speech even during wartime. It is our right and even if it is unpatriotic, I feel that they have that right. I can understand why people wouldn't want people saying bad things about the war, but they shouldn't punish people for doing so. It'd be taking away their rights, and I know that thats unpatriotic. I also think that if a person does speak out about the war and effort they will only get negative feedback anyway so they are getting their own punishment from the public and their friends without it actually being a law that you can't speak out. I don't think that many people would appreciate hearing that and would ignore them anyway.
Also on the factor of the press having too much freedom is wrong if they change stuff. Everyone listens to their reports so if they added stuff or juiced it up then that's what we would hear and that's what we would believe. I don't think that they should have access to top secret information or to secret stories and missions. they should just do thir jobs giving us imformation on how the war's going with permission to use the article from war people.

colleen moran

Anonymous said...

The press deffinitly should not have acsess to everything as if there was not a war going on. If the war had secret information the press has no business with that information. It the press let that information out it could ruin everything for our military if the wrong people saw it and it could hurt our country very badly. The press should not release the info to the public. The press shouldn’t even have the secret war information in the first place. Too much censorship would be not letting the press release information that if crucial to the public and that could effectm out lives. Too little censorship would be letting the press have any inforamtion that wanted and letting them release anything they had. If the information could have a negitive or dangerous effect on the public if released then they should not let the public see it.

--Claire M 5th hour

Anonymous said...

I feel that people should have the right to freedom of speech even during times of war. People should have the freedom of speaking up when they disagree with a matter or when they are for the situation/matter. This is supported by the first amendment. Our opinions should not be hidden or ashamed of, nor should someone be hated by if another person strongly disagrees with his/her opinion. Take for example the war we’re fighting in Iraq. Most people feel that the lunatic, George Bush made a huge mistake, and obviously I am one of those people. What you just read expressed my opinion- I referred to George Bush as a lunatic, and I have the freedom of speech to say that. You can disagree, and get really, really mad but I’m still aloud to say that over and over again if I please. When people disagree, sometimes they go too far and turn to violence to ‘settle’ the problem. That should not happen, but unfortunately it does. However, about the press, I don’t think they should be allowed to expose everything. The government should set ground rules, like limits, so that the press doesn’t go overboard or too far. Very deep secrets could be exposed to a few people or even worse, the world! Secrets, especially secrets of the war/military should not be talked about freely and etc. All People should be allowed freedom of speech, and limited freedom of press. And it’s true, the press will do anything to sell their story- put in a few not real things here and there and soon it could become into a totally made up weird story full of fake stuff.

-Luciana D. 6th hour
and by the way, if anyone cares, my hamster, Basil, just died today, and im really, really sad.
i miss her.

Geoff Wickersham said...

Luciana,

I'm sorry to hear about your hamster. My daughter's hamster, Oxxy, died a couple of months ago.

Mr. W.

Anonymous said...

For freedom of the press I think the press should be almost totally blocked out of the war because I believe that the enemies are looking on our networks for hints on where we are. Anything that will have a dis-advantage on us will is a bad thing and we should not continue our ways. For example if a camera man was over there and he was taping something and got footage of a bunch of soldiers that were in this area and the enemy knew about what the area was, he could go in there and kill all of the soldiers. The cameraman doesn’t even have to state the location of the soldiers because the enemy probably knows there own place very well and can tell just from footage. So the press should not be able to get in the way and cause something that could be very bad.

-Jeff Kohl
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

I believe that the Press should have access to any information that they could access if there wasn’t a war going on. The government should set the line on what information could be released about the war, the way they censored this information should be done in a just way. For example the press should be able to publish articles on the status of the war, or the death toll. I also believe that anyone should be able to give their opinion on the war. I think that as long as the information released doesn’t cause a big amount of panic, it should be good. Finally, the first amendment gives citizens freedom of speech. This freedom shouldn’t be taken away because something else is going on in the country. There’s always going to be people willing to express their opinion on a war and this opinion should not be censored by the Government.

Bruno Rodriguez, 5th hour

Anonymous said...

I think the rules should not change just when there is a war occurring. People should have the right to say what they think is right or wrong. Also, journalist brings up many issues in the world. For example, journalist-making documents about sweat shops or AIDS opens our eyes and makes us want to help. If you take the rights of an American away then can you call America a free country?
-Kellie H.
5th hour

Get like me said...

The press shouldn’t know everything because if they did there would be major chaos with everyone knowing everything happing. The press also exacerbates stuff a lot just to have a story and most of the time it sells and isn’t true. If the war had secret information then no body would even know there is a war going on and no one would be worried. If know one knew about to war and the enemies were conquering us then everyone wouldn’t know what’s going on and they would be in panic. If the government released the information the public things would be good and bad at the same time. It would be good because everybody would know what’s going on and wont be suspired of an outbreak. The bad thing is that everyone will panic. If the government keeps everything always from the citizens then there will be no society if nobody knows anything about anything it would be very bad.



Joseph Elia
5th

Anonymous said...

I believe that the press should not have freedom of speech when it has to do with something that threatens the safety of our people. People argue the fact that we have freedom of speech and we should be able to say whatever we want about issues that have to do with our government but very few people realize that if the press tells the public something that could harm us, the people or groups that want to harm us would find out about it and could have an advantage and possibly remove our freedom of speech if we lost to them(if we were at war). ON the other hand, the press should have freedom of speech about what has already happened and how our government messed up because its in the past and everyone knows about it. I also believe that our freedom of speech laws should express that there are things that you can say, that will get you into trouble with the government.
~Jasmine Montgomery
5th hour

Anonymous said...

I feel like the press should tell the full truth instead of putting their twists on the information. If a war had secret information I think it should be kept secret unless the information was that someone was going to get hurt. In some subjects, we don't need to know every detail. But they can't tell us we're going into a war or such and not explain reasoning. Everyone has the freedom of speech and should be able to use it but if they are going to twist the story I think they shouldn't write about it.

Madelyn Polzin
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

i don't think that the press should be able to print everything about the war. All it would do is bring more problems and worries. It could also put the soliders at risk if secert information was let out. i know that the press wants to have full freedom but i think they would abuse that power if the had it.

Myles Williams

Anonymous said...

I dont think we should give freedom to the press at all because if we do that then they will blow things way out of proportion. For example if to guys got into a argue they will say a fight started out with gun shots fired and than ended in a treat its all lies with the media. So i fill the media is worthy of freedom yet so they should suffer like the rest of us.



~Ralph~
5th

Anonymous said...

I think that the government should have to tell us everything about the wars or anything else. They should tell us as much as they can without putting our safety in jeopardy. You never know who is gonna give our enemies secret information.

-Chasey Millar
6th Hour

Anonymous said...

The press should have enough access to let the people now waht is going on. If you give too much information, chaos may errupt and things may start to go downhill. However, if you don't give enough information, the people will feel as thought they're being left in the dark. This may lead to a revolt demanding more infromation. If the country doesn't get enough information, the people will start becoming afraid and not able to trust anyone namely their government; this is what no government wants. On the other hand, if the country is told too much and they see the really bad things going on, they'll be afraid and will feel as though their government can't handle anything thrown at them. In conclusion, the access should be limited. Enough to sustain the people and to keep them out of the dark without starting chaos.

Elise Lieberman
12/18/06
5th hour

Anonymous said...

I agree with the person who stated that giving full freedom of press is like giving a child free candy. By doing so, that is going to lead to many problems. For one thing they are going to come back asking for more thinking that they are to going to get it for free, just like if u gave a person full freedom, they are gong to think that they can get away with anything that they want to say. Although, if you limit that freedom of press, then you wont run into problems like those. On the other hand, if there is a war going on and you tottally dont support it and disagree with what is going on, then maybe u should be able to state your opion and let the goverment no what u thing is wrong and how you think that he can fix things.
-Jordan B

ian l said...

i think censorship is bad. ergo i think censoring the press is bad. like it or not whether in war time or not the press IS how we get news. is SOME of it fabrications yes. it's not very different from propaganda (just better funded). AND just like propaganda we CHOOSE to believe in it or not

Anonymous said...

This piticular subject is rather out of my reach to comment on. Not from not understanding the questions or the situations but in the sense that you there really is no good place to draw the line. Every situation could be different and there is almost never a middle ground to agree on. There is never a spot where the government can say "here, tell them this and we'll hold onto this" or for the press to say "here this is what we know how much can we tell?" It doesn't happen. Yes the people have a right to know what is happeneing in the world but the government often has a need to keep things in the dark till it is investigated further.

Jon C.
5th hour